Self-study
Sharon, a noted collector of fine glass, found a rare glass vase in a secondhand store in a small town she was visiting. ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ████ █████ █████ ███ ███████████ ████ █ █████████ ███████ █████ ████████ ███████████ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███████████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ██████
Summary
Sharon believes that she did nothing wrong by buying a vase for $10 despite knowing it was worth $1,000. Why not? Because the vase was initially priced by the storekeeper at $10—all Sharon did was not mention its true value when purchasing it.
Notable Assumptions
Sharon comes to a conclusion about her moral innocence just based on a series of factual events that have occurred. This must mean that Sharon is assuming some moral rule that applies to these events, which releases her from any blame.
We need to find a matching principle, which will tell us that if a customer pays the posted price for an item despite knowing of its higher value, then that customer has done nothing wrong.
17.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ████████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████████
a
A seller is ███ █████████ ██ ██████ █ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ██████
This is just about the seller’s obligations, so it can’t possibly lead to the conclusion we need about the buyer being morally innocent.
b
It is the ██████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █ █████ █████ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ████████████
This doesn’t apply to our facts—it’s discussing a possible mismatch between the seller’s price and the amount of money the buyer actually hands over, but there was no such issue here.
c
A buyer's sole ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ █ █████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████
In other words, Sharon was only obligated to pay the seller’s asking price of $10. And she did that, so this rule tells us that Sharon has fulfilled all of her obligations in this situation—thus justifying her claim that she did nothing wrong.
d
It is the ██████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████████
This doesn’t apply to our facts, because it would be relevant to a dispute about the quality of the vase. The dispute we care about is only about the price paid.
e
The obligations that ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ████
This doesn’t apply to our facts, because there’s no indication that Sharon and the shopkeeper are well acquainted. And even if there were, this still doesn’t tell us what specific social or economic obligations would apply.